Picture a savvy land developer who has just bought 1,000 acres of forestland on a city’s outskirts. He plans to cut most of the trees down to build hundreds of new houses but wants to be able to market his “green” credentials.

So he lights on a plan. In his last development, he left five trees standing on each lot. Now he’ll leave 10.

Since twice the trees will remain, twice the carbon will be stored. The developer hires a company with expertise in carbon marketing.

The contractor quantifies the “additional” carbon stored. An independent auditor verifies the project. And presto! The developer is selling carbon credits to help others “offset” their greenhouse-gas emissions.

Then, the developer goes before the local municipal council and gets a zoning variance allowing him to build houses twice as large as before. Although twice the trees must fall to build bigger houses, the developer still gets to sell his carbon credits.

Come on, you say, that can’t happen. But it can. In fact, very similar things are happening right now, and they’re costing our cash-strapped schools and hospitals millions of

dollars so that the provincial government can make the dubious claim of being “carbon neutral.”

Thanks to the recent release of information the Crown corporation Pacific Carbon Trust fought to withhold, we now know just how much private

corporations received in public dollars to allegedly retire public-sector, greenhouse-gas emissions.

By far the most money paid by schools, hospitals and the like was for carbon credits bought by the PCT from one of B.C.’s biggest logging companies. For “conserving” tracts of trees, PCT paid TimberWest a tidy $5.6 million. The 2010 project has striking parallels to the scenario just described.

It rests on the claim that TimberWest “conserved” forests it otherwise would have logged. For this, the company sold 560,925 carbon credits to PCT. Because PCT holds a monopoly, public agencies were forced to pay PCT $25 for each of the TimberWest credits. The trouble is that on the open market that year, the average carbon credits sold for just $6. Thanks to PCT’s mark-up on TimberWest’s credits, our schools, hospitals and the like paid $14 million or more than four times the going rate.

Worse, in addition to lost services for school kids and hospital patients, that $14 million bought little if any climatic benefit. Here’s why.

Just as it’s a mistake to focus on the “additional” trees protected in that hypothetical housing development mentioned above while turning a blind eye to the size of the houses built, so it’s a mistake to focus narrowly on the trees TimberWest allegedly saved while ignoring the company’s overall logging plans.

You see, TimberWest told its own shareholders it had little interest in logging the trees it later “conserved.” It also told those same shareholders that it planned to accelerate its

logging elsewhere. More troubling, PCT knew such facts before cutting TimberWest its cheque.

Other corporations to benefit from PCT’s largesse were EnCana Corp. (more than $1.6 million), Spectra ($555,965), International Forest Products ($613,890) and Blue Source, a self-proclaimed “leading marketer” of carbon offsets, which brokered a $1.6-million sale for energy companies Canadian Natural Resources and Apache Canada.

For this, our schools and hospitals shelled out another $6.84 million.

This policy isn’t in the public interest. Worse, it’s open to abuse. Why, for example, did PCT pay Encana nearly $3 more for its credits than for anyone else’s? Just asking, because PCT’s explanation that some projects have more “value” than others raises more questions than it answers.

The tragedy is that such news may make people throw their hands up in despair, which is precisely what we don’t need in the face of overwhelming evidence that our climate is changing.

A fairer, more transparent way to deal with climate change would simply be to apply B.C.’s landmark carbon tax to public and private sectors alike, ensure all emissions are taxed and then offer our schools, hospitals and the like full rebates as long as the rebates were spent on actual energy savings. This would lower both greenhouse-gas emissions and public-sector operating costs.

Now that’s something that could be justified. The same can’t be said for the fiasco that the PCT and the murky world of carbon-offset trading in B.C. has become.

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the “X” in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.